article fidic conditions dec09
Post on 07-Apr-2018
242 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 1/12
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 2/12
2White & Case
An Engineer’s / Dispute Adjudication Board’s DecisionIs Enorceable By An Arbitral Award
The facts of the caseII.
In 1994, the Contractor/Claimant had entered on the same
day (November 16, 1994) into two construction contracts with
the Respondent/Employer or the construction o two roads,
respectively, in the State o the Employer. The General Conditions
o these contracts were based upon the FIDIC Conditions,
ourth edition, 1987. The law governing the contracts appears
to have been that o a civil law country.4 During the course o
the works, the Contractor asserted numerous claims against
the Employer, including claims or time extension and additional
payment or work done up to May 31, 1997.
On October 18, 1998, the Contractor had ormally requested
decisions rom the Engineer under Clause 67 in relation to
two claims – one apparently under each contract – or time
extension and additional payment up to May 31, 1997. On
November 17, 1998, the Engineer gave decisions on these
requests granting to the Contractor a sum o money under each o
the two contracts.5
On January 25, 1999, the Contractor had given ormal notice
o dissatisaction with such decisions under Clause 67.6
The Respondent/Employer did not give such notice.7
In the meantime, the Contractor had presented two urther claims
or time extension and additional payment under the two contracts
eectively updating the previous ones or work done up to June
30, 1998. On January 29, 1999, the Contractor ormally requested
decisions rom the Engineer under Clause 67 in relation to these
claims. On May 5, 1999, the Engineer made decisions on these
claims granting to the Contractor urther sums in local currency
under each o the two contracts in addition to the sums granted
by the Engineer in his decisions on November 17, 1998.8
None o the decisions o the Engineer was complied with by
the Employer which the Contractor considered to be a breach o
the contracts. For this and other reasons, on August 11, 1999,
the Contractor/Claimant began arbitration against the Employer/
Respondent by ling a Request or Arbitration with the
ICC International Court o Arbitration, pursuant to Clause 67.
By the Request, the Contractor reerred numerous claims to
arbitration, one o which was or:
“Respondent’s ailure to give eect to Engineer’s decision
pursuant to sub-clause 67.1 o the contracts”. 9
Ater the ling o the Request or Arbitration and the
Employer’s/Respondent’s Answer thereto, the Contractor/Claimant
declared its:
“intention to request the Arbitral Tribunal to render an interim
Award… to the eect o (i) declaring that the Respondent
must give eect to the Engineer’s Decisions pursuant to
Sub Clause 67.1 [o the FIDIC conditions] regardless o thepending arbitration, and (ii) ordering the Respondent to
immediately pay the amounts determined by the Engineer
as an advance payment in respect o any urther payment
which would result [sic ] due by the Respondent pursuant to
the nal award.” 10
4 For reasons o condentiality, the governing law is not identied in the published extracts o the interim or nal awards.
5 Interim award, para. 15.
6 Interim award, para. 21.
7 This is clear rom the nal award in the case, para. 17 (the Respondent/Employer “has not objected within the prescribed time limit to the Engineer’s decisions and has
not stated his intention to commence arbitration to have the same reviewed and revised”), ICC International Court o Arbitration Bulletin, Volume 19, No. 2-2008, p. 90.
But see ootnote 24 below.
8 Interim award, para. 15. The interim award does not state whether the Contractor had given ormal notice o dissatisaction with these decisions but presumably it had done
so as otherwise the underlying disputes could not have been reerred to arbitration. In any case, the matter is irrelevant as the Tribunal nds that the decisions were rendered
out o time, as discussed urther below.
9 Interim award, para. 4. The ull description o the Request or Arbitration in the interim award is as ollows:
“On 11 August 1999, pursuant to Article 67 o the FIDIC conditions, the Claimant led a Request or Arbitration with the International Court o Arbitration o the
International Chamber o Commerce in which it raised a number o complaints based upon alleged
Delay and disruption arising rom the design and other associated causes,a)
Respondent’s ailure to grant the Claimant with possession o site,b)
Exceptionally adverse weather conditions,c)
Other delaying and disruptive events,d)
Respondent’s ailure to give eect to Engineer’s decision pursuant to sub-clause 67.1 o the contracts,e)
Respondent’s ailure to provide unding or the contracts,)
Breaches o Contract and law.g)…”
10 Interim award, para. 6.
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 3/12
An Engineer’s / Dispute Adjudication Board’s DecisionIs Enorceable By An Arbitral Award
3White & Case
The Claimant’s case was said to be grounded on Sub-Clause 67.1
which empowers the Engineer to decide on a provisional basis
disputes which are reerred to him by one party. The Claimant
argued that:
“[s]uch decisions [o the Engineer] are binding… on both
parties and shall have eect as soon as they are made
notwithstanding any notice o dissatisaction and/or
application or Request or Arbitration, and they must remain
eective or as long as that they are not reviewed or cancelled
by an out o court settlement or by an arbitral award.”11
As discussed above, there were our decisions o the Engineer.
Two had been made in 1998 in relation to applications o
the Claimant or a time extension and payment o additional
time-related costs. The other two which were made in 1999
had updated and encompassed the sums granted by the
earlier decisions.
None had been complied with by the Employer which, the
Claimant argued, was a breach o the contracts. As the decisions
were stated in Clause 67 to be binding on both parties at least on
a provisional basis, the Claimant maintained that the Tribunal:
“should give them immediate eect by the means o aninterim award, without waiting until the time when ater a
complete review o the actual and legal evidence the Tribunal
could adjudicate in ull on the merits o the dispute.”12
In addition to the wording o Clause 67, the Claimant relied on
Article 23 o the ICC Rules relating to the power o an arbitral
tribunal to order conservatory and interim measures13 and, as the
place o arbitration was Paris, France, on the provisions o the
French Code o Civil Procedure relating to the subject o “rééré
provision”14. Accordingly, the Claimant requested the Tribunal to
order the Respondent:
“to provisionally pay the sums recognized due by the Engineer,
plus accrued interest at the annual rate o 7% pending the nal
judgment o the Tribunal on the merit [sic ] o the respective
arguments o the parties on the whole o the dispute.”
The Claimant maintained that the amounts awarded by the
Engineer, which were in the local currency o the Employer,15
should be converted into U.S. dollars at the contractual exchange
rate, together with interest on such sums until the date o
complete payment.
In response, the Respondent argued essentially as ollows:
The Claimant’s claim or interim relie was unjustied as(1).
there was no evidence o urgency or o a risk o irreparable
harm or the Claimant, which is a necessary condition or an
interim or conservatory measure. In particular, i the Tribunal
were nally to adjudicate in avor o the Claimant, it would be
adequately compensated by an allocation o interest in addition
to the principal amounts granted to it in a nal award and,
in the meantime, there was no evidence that the Claimant
would suer rom any nancial inconvenience as a result o
the Employer’s ailure to pay at this stage. Furthermore, the
Respondent maintained that the Claimant had not prima acie
established its case.16
The provisions o Sub-Clause 67.1 relating to the binding(2).
character o the decisions o the Engineer:
“aim only at preventing disruption o the works pending the nal
resolution o disputes between the parties so that they cannot
apply in the instant case because the relevant decisions were
made ater the completion o the works”. 17
11 Interim award, para. 14.
12 Interim award, para. 16
13 Article 23(1) o the ICC Rules, which appears to be the provision relied upon, provides as ollows:
“Unless the parties have otherwise agreed, as soon as the le has been transmitted to it, the Arbitral Tribunal may, at the request o a party, order any interim
or conservatory measure it deems appropriate. The Arbitral Tribunal may make the granting o any such measure subject to appropriate security being urnished
by the requesting party. Any such measure shall take the orm o an order, giving reasons, or o an Award, as the Arbitral Tribunal considers appropriate.”
[Emphasis added]
14 The rééré provision reers to a type o summary action beore a French court which has been described as:
“a peculiarity o French and Dutch law. It enables a creditor to benet rom emergency procedures, not so as to obtain measures required as a matter o urgency,
but to rapidly have its rights enorced, ully or in part, where those rights are “not seriously disputable””. [Emphasis added]
Fouchard Gaillard Goldman On International Commercial Arbitration (Edited by Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage), Kluwer Law International (The Hague, 1999),
pp. 728-729.
Such “rights” can include the ull payment o a debt, see V.S.K. Electronics v. Sainrapt et Brice International S.B.I., 1990 Rev. Arb. 651, cited in ootnote 93 on
page 728 o Fouchard Gaillard Goldman reerred to above.
15 It is unclear rom the award why the decisions were exclusively in the local currency o the Employer. Possibly, this was because this was the “currency o account” under
the contracts.
16 Interim award, para. 17.
17 Idem.
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 4/12
An Engineer’s / Dispute Adjudication Board’s DecisionIs Enorceable By An Arbitral Award
4White & Case
Moreover, i any o the parties had “expressed its(3).
disagreement with the Engineer’s decisions” (by giving a ormal
notice o dissatisaction), which the Respondent maintained
both parties had done:
“… the decisions are deprived o their binding character.”18
The Respondent also relied or its deense on the ollowing points:
The decisions made on May 5, 1999 were made ater the
84-day period allowed to the Engineer under Sub-Clause 67.1,
The sums granted by the Engineer were expressed in local
currency and, consequently, the Claimant could not claim or
them in U.S. dollars, and
The decisions could not be held to be “sel executory” because,
in the Engineer’s decisions, the Engineer had stated that they
were “subject to the Employer’s prior approval” inasmuch as:
“no payment could be made in the absence o certicates
o payment or which prior approval o the Employer was
also required”. 19
Thereore, the Respondent asked the Tribunal to dismiss the
Claimant’s application or an interim award.
The Tribunal’s reasoningIII.
The Tribunal began its analysis by recalling the “system” o Sub-
Clause 67.1 o the FIDIC Conditions, ourth edition. In brie, this
provides that:
i a dispute should arise between the Employer and the(1).
Contractor in connection with the Contract, it must be reerred
in writing to the Engineer who is required to notiy the parties o
his decision within 84 days;
i the Engineer should ail to notiy his decision within(2).
that time period, then within a urther period o 70 days either
party may notiy its intention to commence arbitration as to the
matter in dispute; and
i, as is ordinarily the case, the Engineer noties his decision(3).
within 84 days, then either party may, also within a time limit
o 70 days, address a notice o its intention to challenge the
decision by way o arbitration to the Engineer and the other
party, ailing which the decision will become “nal and binding”
on both parties and “cannot be revoked in arbitration”. 20
The Tribunal urther noted, correctly, that i either party had given
a notice o dissatisaction with the decision within 70 days, then
while such decision is not “nal”, nevertheless it is “binding”
on both parties who are required to comply with it orthwith, as
stated in the second paragraph o Sub-Clause 67.1 whereby:
“… the Contractor and the Employer shall give eect
orthwith to every such decision o the Engineer unless and
until the same shall be revised, as hereinater provided, in an
amicable settlement or an arbitral award.” 21
Ater reviewing the acts relating to the Engineer’s decisions, the
Tribunal determined that the two decisions made on May 5, 1999
were made more than 84 days ater the Claimant had requested
them pursuant to Sub-Clause 67.1 and, consequently, “they cannot
bind the parties”. 22 Thereore, the Tribunal denied the Claimant’s
request or an interim award with respect to those decisions.
However, the Tribunal ound that “[s]ince… the 5 May decisions
are held ineective…, those o 17 November 1998 survive.”23
They had, in act, been made timeously, that is, within 84
days o the Claimant’s request thereor. As stated above, the
18 Idem.
19 Sub-Clause 2.1 o Part II o the FIDIC Conditions included in the relevant contract here expressly provided – as many construction contracts based on the FIDIC Conditions do
– that i the Engineer carried out certain duties under the contract, including apparently the certication o payments, it would need the Employer’s prior approval.
20 Interim award, para. 18. For a commentary on Clause 67 o the FIDIC Conditions, third and ourth editions, see the author’s two articles entitled “The Pre Arbitral Procedure
or the Settlement o Disputes in the FIDIC (Civil Engineering) Conditions o Contracts ” [1986] The International Construction Law Review (“ICLR”) 315 and “The Principal
Changes in The Procedure or the Settlement o Disputes (Clause 67 )” [1989] ICLR 177, respectively.
21 Interim award, para. 18 (quoting Sub-Clause 67.1 o the FIDIC Conditions, ourth edition, 1987).
22 Interim award, para. 20. According to the award:
“… the Engineer took the position that because the parties were at that time in negotiation or a tentative settlement o their dierence, it could deer its
decisions until 5 May 1999 [that is, until more than 84 days ater the Claimant had requested the decisions on 29 January 1999]. But in the absence o any
evidence at this stage that both parties had, whether in express terms or impliedly, agreed or the Engineer not to stick to the time condition o Article 67.1, it is
this Tribunal’s opinion that the Engineer had no authority to depart rom a rule which remained binding on the parties.” [Emphasis added]
23 Interim award, para. 21.
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 5/12
An Engineer’s / Dispute Adjudication Board’s DecisionIs Enorceable By An Arbitral Award
5White & Case
Contractor/ Claimant had led its ormal notice o dissatisaction
within the required 70 days (January 25, 1999).24 Consequently,
the Tribunal ound that the decisions made on November 17, 1998:
“… must be considered as capable o producing immediate
legal eect on the parties or as long they are not revised or
set aside by the parties in an out o court settlement or by an
arbitral award. It does not matter whether they were notied
ater or beore completion o the works: in both cases,
Article 67.1 states that its provision shall apply.”25
The Tribunal then considered the issue o “whether and on whatlegal basis this Tribunal may adjudicate the present dispute by an
interim award”. 26 The Tribunal justied its decision by reerence to
the contract (Clause 67), ater careully distinguishing this basis
or its decision rom Article 23 o the ICC Rules and French law
relating to rééré provision (the place o arbitration being Paris),
also relied upon by the Claimant. The Tribunal stated as ollows:
“… I the above Engineer’s decisions have an immediate
binding eect on the parties so that the mere act that any
party does not comply with them orthwith is deemed a
breach o contract, notwithstanding the possibility that at
the end they may be revised or set aside in arbitration or
by a urther agreement to the contrary, there is no reason
why in the ace o such a breach the Arbitral Tribunal should
rerain rom an immediate judgment giving the Engineer’s
decisions their ull orce and eect. This simply is the law o
the contract.
In this respect, this Tribunal wishes to emphasize that neither
the provisions o Article 23 o the ICC Rules, nor the rules o
the French NCPC relating to the rééré provision are relevant.
For one thing, the judgement to be hereby made is not one o
a conservatory or interim measure, stricto sensu , but rather
one giving ull immediate eect to a right that a party enjoys
without discussion on the basis o the Contract and which
the parties have agreed shall extend at least until the end o
the arbitration. For the second thing, the will o the partiesshall prevail over any consideration o urgency or irreparable
harm or umus boni juris which are among the basics o the
French rééré provision.”27 [Emphasis added]
The Tribunal could have held merely that the Employer was in
breach o contract and required the Employer to pay damages
or such breach, represented by interest on the amount o the
unpaid decisions. But, instead, the Tribunal ordered the Employer
to pay the amount o the Engineer’s decisions on the ground that
“[t]his is simply the law o the Contract”.
In the author’s view, this is the right approach. It refects the
intention o the FIDIC Conditions which is that Engineer’s
decisions are to be respected even i they have been the subject
o a timely notice o dissatisaction rom a party and might later
be proved to have been wrong. I they speciy that an amount is
to be paid to the Contractor, then the amount is to be paid even
though the decision could later be reversed and the amount paid
be required to be returned. How better to promote respect or
Engineer’s decisions, in keeping with the intention o the FIDIC
Conditions, than to enorce them directly by an arbitral award?
Moreover, by relying on the “law o the contract”, instead o
Article 23(1) o the ICC Rules or French law on rééré provision,
the Tribunal avoided having to make ndings o urgency or
irreparable harm, as might have been necessary to justiy resort
to those procedures. The Tribunal also rerains rom describing the
payment as an “advance payment” as the Claimant had argued.Rather, the payment is to be made like any other sum due under
the contracts (although, i the decision were reversed by an arbitral
tribunal, it could be subject to ultimate repayment).
The Tribunal then dealt with the act that, at the end o each o
the Engineer’s decisions o November 17, 1998, ater stating the
amounts that were due to the Claimant, the Engineer had stated
as ollows:
“By copy o this letter the Employer is requested to give
his specic approval (in terms o Sub-Clause 2.1(b) o the
Conditions o Contract, Part II) or the Engineer to certiy such
additional cost or payment.”28
On the basis o this particular wording, the Respondent had
argued that the Engineer’s decisions were conditional upon the
Employer’s approval and that they were thereore not binding
since such approval was not obtained.
24 Ibid . While the Tribunal nds that the Respondent/Employer had not led a ormal notice o dissatisaction within the required 70 days (see ootnote 7 above), it does
note that:
“the Employer even i not in the ormal terms prescribed by Article 67.1 expressed its disagreement by its so called “Stand” o January 1999.”
It is unclear rom the interim award what “Stand” is reerring to. In any event, the Tribunal does not nd the Employer’s action to have contractual signicance.
25 Interim award, para. 21.
26 Interim award, para. 22.
27 Interim award, para. 22. The term “umus boni juris ”, which may not be amiliar to all readers, is dened as “prima acie case” or “probability o the alleged claim” byWebster’s Online Dictionary, www.websters-dictionary.online.org.
28 Interim award, para. 23.
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 6/12
An Engineer’s / Dispute Adjudication Board’s DecisionIs Enorceable By An Arbitral Award
6White & Case
The Tribunal rejected this argument or “at least two reasons”, as
ollows:
“… First, the Engineer wrongly believed that decisions
o that sort were subject to the particular conditions o
Sub-Clause 2.1(b) o Part II o the FIDIC Conditions o
Contract. In reality decisions taken pursuant to Article 67.1 are
not among those or which the Engineer must obtain specic
prior approval o the Employer.29 Moreover, even i issuance o
certicates o payment by the Engineer may require approval
o the Employer, this condition aects only the validity o
such certicates but certainly not that o the relevant decisionitsel; and, in the case where the Employer although bound
to give immediate eect to that decision rerains to do so
simply by reusing to approve a certicate o payment, this
will obviously result in a breach o its contractual duties
justiying a claim rom the Contractor. Finally, one could not
give any positive eect to a phrase which is inconsistent with
the meaning o the decision which is clear and unequivocal.”30
[Emphasis added]
The Tribunal correctly construed the Employer’s obligation to pay
binding decisions o the Engineer under Clause 67 as not being
subject to the condition that the Engineer issue a certicate
o payment or them under Clause 60 (and, as a certicate o
payment, be subject to the prior approval o the Employer under
Sub-Clause 2.1(b) o Part II o the FIDIC Conditions). While
certicates o payment o the Engineer are the means by which
the Contractor normally becomes entitled to payments under
the FIDIC Conditions and, to be valid, might (i so provided by
Sub-Clause 2.1(b)) require the prior approval o the Employer, the
Tribunal noted that:
“this condition [the prior approval o the Employer] aects
only the validity o such certicates but certainly not that o
the relevant decision [under Clause 67] itsel.”
I binding decisions o the Engineer under Clause 67 were
subject to the conditions that applied to payment certicates, the
Employer could eectively circumvent the Clause 67 procedure
by not approving payment certicates, thereby depriving
such procedure o eect, which is unlikely to have been theparties’ intention.
However, the Tribunal denied the Claimant’s request that the
amounts o the Engineer’s decisions, which were denominated
in local currency, be converted into U.S. dollars and be awarded in
that currency together with interest. In response to this request,
the Tribunal stated that it:
“cannot do any more than to give legal orce and eect to the
relevant decisions as they are.”31
The Tribunal noted the total sum o the two decisions o
17 November 1998 in local currency and stated:
“There is no reason here to depart rom the parties’
agreement concerning the currency o payment pursuant
to [the relevant contracts]. Failing any other indication in the
decisions, the payment o the above amount shall be ordered
17.6% in [local] currency and 82.4% in US$, at the contractual
xed rate o…”. 32
29 Sub-Clause 2.1 o Part I o the FIDIC Conditions, ourth edition, deals with the Engineer’s duties and authorities. Among other things, it states that the:
“Engineer may exercise the authority specied in or necessarily to be implied rom the Contract, provided, however, that i the Engineer is required, under the
terms o his appointment by the Employer, to obtain the specic approval o the Employer beore exercising any such authority, particulars o such requirements
shall be set out in Part II o the Conditions.”
The interim award does not quote or describe Sub-Clause 2.1(b) o Part II o the conditions o the contracts at issue, so it is not possible to know its contents. However,
usually such restrictions o authority, which may derive rom the requirements o legislation or regulations (governmental or other), require approval by the Employer o
variations leading to increases in costs or extensions o time. In eect, they limit the Engineer’s authority in various cases where, under the FIDIC Conditions, the Engineeris acting as the Employer’s agent. However, the FIDIC Conditions, properly construed, should not allow any restriction on the authority o the Engineer when he is acting
under Clause 67 as, under that Clause, he is required, implicitly, to decide disputes airly and impartially between the parties and not act merely as the agent o the Employer
(whose authority, in that capacity, is naturally subject to possible restriction). Accordingly, the Tribunal correctly decides that restrictions on the Engineer’s authority pursuant
to Sub-Clause 2.1(b) in relation to the giving o payment certicates cannot relieve the Employer rom having to pay decisions o the Engineer under Clause 67.
30 Interim award, para. 23.
31 Interim award, para. 24.
32 Interim award, para. 24. The Tribunal’s position in this respect is in striking contrast to the position o another ICC tribunal, also in relation to the FIDIC Conditions, ourth
edition, 1987, and this time sitting in London and not Paris, which stated:
“The respondent [the Employer] contended that the matter o currencies was dealt with under the contract. While this may provide or the currencies in which
payment under the contract is to be made, the contract is silent as to the currency in which any arbitral award is to be given.” [Emphasis added]
As the Tribunal in that case ound that the contract “was silent as to the currency in which any arbitral award is to be given”, the tribunal ound, or purposes o Section 48(4) o
the English Arbitration Act 1996, that the parties had not “otherwise agreed” on a currency o payment or the award and that, thereore, the Tribunal had the power to order
payment o any sum o money ound to be due in any currency and ordered payment o the award to be made in the European currencies o the claimant (the Contractor),
instead o in the currency o Lesotho (Maloti), the currency o the respondent (the Employer) and also largely the currency o payment in the contract. See the description o
the ICC award in the decision o the House o Lords in Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA [2005] B.L.R. 351, 354 5. While there may have been other
compelling reasons or the Tribunal’s decision (as suggested by Antonio Crivellaro, All’s Well That Ends Well: London Remains a Suitable Venue or International Arbitration
– But Only Thanks to the House o Lords [2005] ICLR 480, 489 91), the Tribunal’s stated reason is surprising as contracts rarely, i ever, provide in addition to, and in place
o, a currency o payment, a “currency in which any arbitral award is to be given” – certainly the FIDIC Conditions never have. While the arbitrators’ award was successully
challenged on the ground o “serious irregularity” beore the English Commercial Court (Queen’s Bench Division) and Court o Appeal, the House o Lords (Lord Phillips
dissenting) set aside the lower court decisions and, eectively, reinstated the award.
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 7/12
An Engineer’s / Dispute Adjudication Board’s DecisionIs Enorceable By An Arbitral Award
7White & Case
The Tribunal also stated that it was not prepared “at this early
stage o the arbitration” to grant interest on the amount awarded,
both because “the Engineer said nothing in this regard” (the
award does not state whether the Contractor had claimed interest
when requesting the Engineer’s decisions) and because the
Tribunal thought that “more inormation would be needed in the
context o this dispute beore deciding the issue”. 33
Finally, the Tribunal noted that, as Sub-Clause 67.1 provides that
the Engineer’s decisions shall have “an immediate binding eect”
that “provisional enorcement” o the award (as permitted under
the law o the place o arbitration, France) must be ordered.
As the seat o arbitration was Paris, the eect o this under
French law was that the award could be immediately enorced,
notwithstanding the institution o a judicial procedure to set the
award aside.34
The Tribunal’s awardIV.
The exact manner in which the Tribunal ordered enorcement o
the Engineer’s decisions is also o interest. The dispositive part o
their award provided as ollows:
“Thereore, on the basis o the oregoing, the Arbitral Tribunal
decides as ollows:
The Respondent [____] shall pay to the Claimant [_____],
immediately upon notication o the present award the sums o
[Local currency] …
US dollars ...
The issue o interest and that o a compensation or the
parties’ legal expenses as well as the decision on the costs
and ees o this part o the arbitration are reserved.
Provisional enorcement o this award is ordered.
The rights o the parties as to the merits o their case,
including but not limited to the nal and binding eect [35]
o the Engineer’s decisions are reserved until the nal
Award o this Tribunal.” [Emphasis added]
The above emphasized words make it very clear that the
Tribunal’s decision to enorce the Engineer’s decisions made
on November 17, 1998, by ordering their payment, would not
prejudice the Employer’s right to argue later in the arbitration that
they were wrong and that the corresponding amounts should be
repaid to the Employer.36
In the nal award, the Tribunal conrmed that, even though the
Respondent/Employer “had not objected within the prescribed
time limit to the Engineer’s decisions”, the Respondent/Employer
“may take advantage o the notice made by the [Claimant/
Contractor objecting to the Engineer’s decisions] and request
the Arbitral Tribunal to reverse the Engineer’s decisions”. The
Respondent/Employer could do so since “the Claimant has
declared his dissatisaction with the entire content o the
Engineer’s decisions”. 37
Implications for FIDIC contractsV.
In the author’s view, the Arbitral Tribunal in ICC Case
No. 10619 has perectly understood the way Clause 67 o
the FIDIC Conditions is to unction and its decision to order
payment o the Engineer’s decisions by way o an interim award,
notwithstanding the Contractor’s earlier notice o dissatisaction,
accords ully with the intention o Clause 67.
The notable points in the award are, in summary, as ollows:
an Engineer’s decision made under Clause 67 may be(1).
enorced by means o an arbitral award notwithstanding that
it had been the subject o a notice o dissatisaction within the
time limit provided or by that Clause and regardless o the act
that the works had been completed;
an Engineer’s decision must be made within the designated(2).
84-day time limit i it is to be binding on the parties (and the act
that the parties may have been negotiating a settlement o the
dispute did not entitle or authorize the Engineer to deer the
making o such decision);
33 Interim award, para. 25. The Arbitral Tribunal also noted that no question was raised in the application or an interim award about the Engineer’s decisions as to an extension o
time, interim award, para. 26.
34 See Article 1479 o the French Code o Civil Procedure.
35 The reerence to the “nal and binding eect” o the Engineer’s decisions appears to be excessive as there were no “nal and binding” decisions (that is, decisions
which had not been the subject o a notice o dissatisaction rom either party) but only “binding” decisions (that is, decisions which had been the subject o a notice o
dissatisaction rom one or both parties). Perhaps the Tribunal meant that, i it conrmed them, they would have “nal and binding eect” in the sense that they could no
longer be reversed or, alternatively, merely used these words out o an abundance o caution.
36 As it happened, the Respondent did not comply with the interim award and the Tribunal later conrmed the amounts awarded by the interim award in its nal award inApril 2002.
37 ICC International Court o Arbitration Bulletin, Volume 19, No. 2-2008, p. 90, paras. 17 and 18.
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 8/12
An Engineer’s / Dispute Adjudication Board’s DecisionIs Enorceable By An Arbitral Award
8White & Case
i an Engineer’s decision has been made within the(3).
required 84-day period and has not been the subject o
a notice o dissatisaction within 70 days, it “cannot be
revoked in arbitration”; 38
the Employer’s obligation to pay a binding decision o the(4).
Engineer under Clause 67 is not subject to a restriction under
Sub-Clause 2.1 o the FIDIC Conditions on the Engineer’s power
to certiy payment under Clause 60 o the FIDIC Conditions;
the reusal to denominate the amounts awarded in other(5).
currencies than the currencies or payment specied in
the contract; 39
the denial o interest on the sums awarded by the(6).
Engineer as the Engineer had said nothing about the subject
in his decisions but also because “more inormation would be
needed… beore deciding this issue”; and
as conrmed in the nal award, that even though the(7).
Employer had not ormally expressed dissatisaction with the
Engineer’s decisions in time, it was entitled to take advantage
o the Contractor’s ormal notice o dissatisaction and, thus, to
request the Tribunal to reverse those decisions in their entirety.
In an earlier award, only a summary o which has been
published,40 an ICC arbitral tribunal had, by an interim award,
ordered payment o nal and binding decisions o the Engineer
under Clause 67 o the FIDIC Conditions, second edition, 1969.
However, the interim award in ICC Case No. 10619 is the rst
example o a published award o which the author is aware
where an arbitral tribunal has ordered payment by an award o
the amount o an Engineer’s decision which is “binding” but
not “nal”, that is, which had been ormally challenged within
the required time limit (70 days o the decision under the
FIDIC Conditions, ourth edition), by one or both o the parties.
The practical eect o enorcing by an interim award an Engineer’s
decision ordering a payment to be made to the Contractor – and
assuming the payment were made – is to reverse the parties’
roles in the arbitration in relation to the dispute which was the
subject o the decision in that the contractor will now hold the
corresponding money. The Contractor whose claim has been
satised, albeit temporarily, no longer has necessarily to claim or
it in the merits phase o the arbitration, and is thereore no longer
exposed to the risk o the Employer’s insolvency in the interim.
Instead, the Employer is exposed to the risk o the Contractor’s
insolvency in the interim should the Employer later prevail on that
claim in the merits phase and seek to recover the money.41
The author submits that the same result should obtain in the
case o a decision o a DAB under Clause 20 o the 1999 FIDIC
Books as applies in the case o a decision o the Engineer under
Clause 67 o the FIDIC Conditions, ourth edition. This is because
the relevant language o Clause 67 o the ourth edition and o
Clause 20 o the 1999 FIDIC Books is essentially the same.
Sub-Clause 67.1 o the FIDIC Conditions, ourth edition, provides
that, with respect to each decision o the Engineer:
“… the Contractor and the Employer shall give eect
orthwith to every such decision o the Engineer unless and
until the same shall be revised, as hereinater provided, in an
amicable settlement or an arbitral award.”
This was the key language relied upon by the Tribunal in their
interim award in ICC Case No. 10619 to justiy the giving o
their award.
The language in Sub-Clause 20.4 is at least as strong. It provides
as ollows:
“The decision [o a Dispute Adjudication Board] shall be
binding on both Parties, who shall promptly give eect to it
unless and until it shall be revised in an amicable settlement
or an arbitral award as described below.”
38 Interim award, para. 18.
39 While the works had apparently been completed (see the interim award, para. 17) and, thereore, the Contractor may no longer have need o local currency to pay expenses
in the local country concerned, absent a provision in the relevant contract or French arbitration law (there is none), the Tribunal would have no clear authority to depart rom
the parties’ agreement concerning the currency o payment provided or in their contract.
40 ICC Case Nos. 3790/3902/4050/4051/4054 (joined cases), also reerred to simply as ICC Case No. 3790, ICCA Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Volume XI – 1986, pp. 119 to
127; also summarized in Abdul Hamid El-Ahdab, Arbitration with the Arab Countries , Kluwer, Deventer, 1990, pp. 889 to 891.
41 It is beyond the scope o this paper to consider whether, as a policy matter, this is necessarily a desirable result. The risk or the Employer can be mitigated i the Engineer
(or a DAB, now that it has replaced the Engineer as a decider o disputes under the 1999 FIDIC Red Book) conditions any payment to the Contractor on the provision o
appropriate security, such as a bank guarantee in “rst demand” orm.
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 9/12
An Engineer’s / Dispute Adjudication Board’s DecisionIs Enorceable By An Arbitral Award
9White & Case
Accordingly, the interim award in ICC Case No. 10619 is directly
applicable to a decision o a DAB under the 1999 FIDIC Books.42
Even i one or both parties have given a notice o dissatisaction
with respect to a decision o a DAB pursuant to Sub-Clause 20.4,
each party is bound to give eect to that decision and, i that
decision calls or a payment to be made by one party to the other,
then that decision should be enorceable directly by an interim or
partial award pursuant to the ICC Rules. This is the consequence,
this author submits, o the interim award in ICC Case No. 10619.43
42 See the author’s “The Arbitration Clause in FIDIC Contracts or Major Works ” [2005] ICLR 4.
43 Interestingly, the interim award in ICC Case No. 10619 – or at least its publication in 2009 – has been anticipated in the ICC Model Turnkey Contract or Major Works (2007), as
this provides in Article 67.1:
“No arbitral tribunal can open up review or revise any decision o the CDB [Combined Dispute Board] which has become nal and binding in accordance with the
Rules, but an arbitral tribunal may, i considered appropriate by the arbitral tribunal and permitted under applicable law, as provided hereater, make interim awards
or the purpose o enorcement o the CDB decision.” [Emphasis added]
While in an article dealing with “nal and binding “ decisions, the provision relating to interim awards is not necessarily limited to them and could include merely
“binding” decisions.
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 10/12
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 11/12
8/4/2019 Article FIDIC Conditions Dec09
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/article-fidic-conditions-dec09 12/12
36 Oces. 25 Countries.
White & Case LLP
19, Place Vendôme
75001 Paris
France
Tel: + 33 1 55 04 15 15
Fax: + 33 1 55 04 15 16
www.whitecase.com
In this publication, White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership,
White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other a fliated partnerships, corporations and undert akings.
LON 1009057
top related